We had a guest speaker in one of my classes recently, and he made a point of asking if this was "a non-attribution environment." (the instructor confirmed that this was indeed the case).
That's a common caveat in military academic circles. It basically means people can speak freely, without fear of retribution (or, apparently, attribution). The "non-attribution" clause is usually invoked by people who want to speak an uncomfortable truth and not have it quoted later, to their detriment.
I can't stand it when they do that. It's even worse when the speaker is a former fighter pilot, who is supposed to have a certain level of courage and fortitude.
When I'm on the other side of the podium, I often make a point of explaining that everything I say is fully "for attribution," and I'm waiving any inherent "non-attribution" rights or protections. Pah! If I say something out loud to an audience, it's because I believe it and I'm willing to stand behind it. They can quote me on it, to what ever authority they wish.
I never want to tell people "Here's something I believe to be true, but please don't tell anyone else I said it or believe it..." or "Here's an uncomfortable truth we can temporarily recognize, but once we leave this room let's go back to pretending it's not the case."
I'm curious if the "non-attribution environment" (by another name, perhaps?) exists in other places. I wish it didn't exist here...